And Now the Bush
So, the Bush is the latest to announce that it faces having its grant cut - by 37.5% - not because of concerns about the quality of its productions but because it is too small as it only has 80 seats.
No mention of the numerous West End transfers and tours which have originated there over the years (Elling and Whipping It Up last year, for example), nor of the major theatrical figures - writers, actors, directors - who have started their careers there. No, it’s all down to size, the number of bums it is able to put on seats.
What on earth is going on at ACE? Has quality ceased to be a criterion for grants? Some companies which have been threatened with cuts say that they have never had a representative from the regional office at any of their productions, so how can the quality of their work be judged?
The answer, of course, is that it can’t be. And it is hardly surprising because the number of arts specialists at ACE, regionally certainly but most particularly in Great Peter Street, is smaller than ever before. More and more ACE staff are admin or management types. I am reminded of something I was told by a hospital consultant a few years ago. Financial pressures were forcing him to cancel non-urgent surgery and treatments but there was nonetheless enough money for a revamp of the boardroom which cost in excess of £10,000.
In an article on the Stage website, published today, Ian Herbert, who used to edit Theatre Record, compares ACE as it is now and as it was in 1997. It makes for very illuminating reading. Arts Council, he says, “makes policy, a month before (Brian) McMaster tells us what it is, by sending out unexplained dismissal notices to a list it will not disclose.” It’s an article everyone who is concerned about theatre should read - and be scared by!
Also in the last couple of days, Peter Hewitt, who is stepping down as ACE’s chief exec, has defended the cuts and the short time given for appeal by saying that it will “enable us to get the best value for our audiences from our investments over the full term of the three-year funding cycle.”
As anyone who has worked in local government (where it has been a sacred cow for some time) will tell you, “best value” is a matter of ticking boxes and meeting “priorities”, priorities which are far too often set not by the people on the ground who have to deliver but by the administrators who like things which are quantifiable - not “was this a good play?” but “did it increase the audience by a measurable percentage?” - or even by central government - does it, for example, promote inclusiveness?
In an article which I wrote back in 1999 which touched on funding issues, I quoted the then president of the TMA, Barbara Matthews, who said something which is just as true (if not more so) now as it was then: “Theatres must have the freedom and confidence to experiment with work of quality - to do what they do best rather than operate within a bureaucratic nightmare.”
When will they ever learn?